From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@gmail.com>
To: <sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev>, "Vlad Poenaru" <vlad.wing@gmail.com>
Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf, lpm_trie: Allow lookups from sleepable BPF programs
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 11:17:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DJ2PD6LPWBZH.23QDYT24490ZH@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260529190220.2090C1F00893@smtp.kernel.org>
On Fri May 29, 2026 at 9:02 PM CEST, sashiko-bot wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the fix is incomplete. The patch resolves an RCU lockdep splat in `trie_lookup_elem` for sleepable BPF programs, but leaves identical core kernel locking rule violations in `trie_update_elem` and `trie_delete_elem`. Sleepable eBPF programs hold `rcu_read_lock_trace()`, not the classic `rcu_read_lock()`. The update and delete operations acquire the map's spinlock (`trie->lock`) and correctly serialize access, but they use `rcu_dereference()` to traverse the trie instead of the update-side API `rcu_dereference_protected()`. `rcu_dereference()` strictly asserts that `rcu_read_lock_held()` is true. Holding a spinlock disables preemption but does not satisfy this check, leading to the exact same 'suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage' lockdep splat that this patch aimed to fix.
> --
>
> commit 1ac6e30b3c7fb4d93d67bfcbb5dc35077814b266
> Author: Vlad Poenaru <vlad.wing@gmail.com>
>
> bpf, lpm_trie: Allow lookups from sleepable BPF programs
>
> This commit fixes a lockdep warning caused by sleepable BPF programs
> accessing LPM tries. It updates the RCU dereference checks in
> trie_lookup_elem() to use bpf_rcu_lock_held() instead of
> rcu_read_lock_bh_held().
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
>> index 0f57608b385d4..ac36063cb7e62 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static void *trie_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *_key)
>> */
>> next_bit = extract_bit(key->data, node->prefixlen);
>> node = rcu_dereference_check(node->child[next_bit],
>> - rcu_read_lock_bh_held());
>> + bpf_rcu_lock_held());
>> }
>>
>> if (!found)
>
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does this patch leave the fix incomplete?
>
> While this patch updates the lookup path to avoid lockdep splats from sleepable
> BPF programs, sleepable BPF programs can also trigger map updates and deletes.
> The functions trie_update_elem() and trie_delete_elem() acquire the map's
> spinlock (trie->lock) but traverse the tree using rcu_dereference():
>
> kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:trie_update_elem() {
> ...
> while ((node = rcu_dereference(*slot))) {
> matchlen = longest_prefix_match(trie, node, key);
> ...
> }
>
> kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:trie_delete_elem() {
> ...
> while ((node = rcu_dereference(*trim))) {
> matchlen = longest_prefix_match(trie, node, key);
> ...
> }
>
> Because rcu_dereference() strictly asserts that rcu_read_lock_held() is true,
> and holding a spinlock does not satisfy the classic RCU read lock check, won't
> calling map updates or deletes from sleepable programs still trigger the exact
> same suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage lockdep splats?
Please address this feedback for other instances and respin.
pw-bot: cr
>
> Should these paths be updated to use rcu_dereference_protected() since the
> trie->lock is held?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-07 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-29 17:42 [PATCH bpf] bpf, lpm_trie: Allow lookups from sleepable BPF programs Vlad Poenaru
2026-05-29 19:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-29 19:30 ` Emil Tsalapatis
2026-06-07 9:17 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [this message]
2026-05-29 19:19 ` Emil Tsalapatis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DJ2PD6LPWBZH.23QDYT24490ZH@gmail.com \
--to=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vlad.wing@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox